linux-kernel - Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1217325853.7563.5.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:04:13 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI
	vector?

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2008 19:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 14:30 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Not to mention the minor problem that it still deadlocks when called with
> > > interrupts disabled ;)
> >
> > __smp_call_function_single has potential though..
> 
> For reschedule interrupt? I don't really agree.

Not specifically, for not deadlocking from irq-off, more so.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/